A LOCAL AUTHORITY v THE FATHER & Anor

An order preventing all direct and indirect contact between a child and a parent is exceptional. It should be made only where the circumstances are exceptional and no contact is in the child’s interests. Although contact with a parent will ordinarily be beneficial, the child’s welfare may require no contact where this is necessary to secure stability and emotional safety in the child’s placement. Under section 4(2A) of the Children Act 1989, welfare is paramount when deciding whether to terminate parental responsibility. Termination may be appropriate where the court would probably not have granted parental responsibility in the circumstances and its removal enables a special guardian to exercise parental responsibility without continuing concern about the parent’s role.

The local authority sought orders concerning a 16-month-old child whose mother and older sibling had been killed by the father. The child was living successfully with his maternal grandparents, who were assessed as suitable carers. The father was awaiting trial on criminal charges and did not oppose the substantive family orders.

The court was asked to make a special guardianship order, prohibit direct and indirect contact, terminate the father’s parental responsibility under section 4(2A) of the Children Act 1989, and change the child’s surname and middle name. The central questions were whether the exceptional circumstances justified no contact and whether the proposed orders promoted the child’s welfare.

1. Orders made. The court made a special guardianship order in favour of the maternal grandparents, ordered that the father have no direct or indirect contact, terminated his parental responsibility, changed the child’s surname to that of the maternal grandparents and removed his middle name. The proposed additional middle name was not pursued.
2. No contact. Applying Re Q [2016] 2 FLR 287, the judge treated an order for no contact as extreme and appropriate only in an exceptional case, where it is in the child’s interests. Contact with a parent is almost always in a child’s interests, but this was a tragically exceptional case. The child’s welfare required secure placement with the maternal grandparents and sufficient emotional security for them to care for him, making the order necessary.
3. Parental responsibility. Section 4(2A) of the Children Act 1989 required the child’s welfare to be the paramount consideration. Following the approach described in DW [2013] EWHC 854, termination could be appropriate where the court would probably not have made an order granting parental responsibility in the first place. That test was plainly satisfied, and termination would allow the grandparents to exercise parental responsibility under the special guardianship order without concern about the father’s position.
4. Name orders and future planning. The surname change was justified by the child’s relationship with the maternal grandparents and mother, and the removal of the middle name was justified by the distress it caused the grandparents. The judge cautioned that, in the future, the child would need an appropriate and professionally supported explanation of his childhood and paternal family.